Re: Where have all the aesthetics gone?

[Nick Dippie <nd603@soton.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


not quite sure where you coming from on this one alexis.i've done quite a
few modules in aesthetics, and as far as i'm aware there's been no shortage
of english language aestheticians over the last century. the likes of
stanley cavell, noel carroll, jerrold levinson and alex neill are all
specialist aestheticians,and are just a few names i could cite. many
philosophers (such as stephen mulhall) are specialists in other areas
(mulhall is a heidegger man mostly) but still contribute to the debate
(mulhall's 'on film'). philosophy of film is certainly one area thats had a
lot of interesting things written about it, and philosophical theories of
literature and music are also there if you look in the right places.

whilst it may not always receive the same respect as the analytic school, as
far as i know its still a lively area of debate.although i've lost the link
now, that postgrad journal of aesthetics looked pretty interesting as well.
actually would someone mind pointing me in the right direction for that?
there were a few articles there i was intending to read but forgot to
bookmark it.

nick



Quoting A M Artaud de la Ferriere <ega05ama@sheffield.ac.uk>:

> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
> BUPS-DIS@bups.org
>
>
>
>
> I was talking with my tutor before the break about the lack of interest
> in XXth
> century and contemporary philosophy for aesthetics. It's rather a
> surprising
> thing in many ways given the amazing transformation of art and literature
> over
> the last hundred years. He said he didn't have an explanation for the
> dwindling
> interest in this area. And it leaves me unsatisfied.
> Of course, on the 'continental' side there has been a profusion of work
> by
> philosophers on the subject of art: Sartre, Barthes, Deleuze, Foucault,
> Derrida... But if their work does look into art they are not thought of
> as
> philosophers of the aesthetic. Indeed, the work of some is hard to
> classify as
> philosophy. And where their work is most applied to art, it is has been
> principally seen this side of the Channel (and much more so on the other
> side
> of the Atlantic) as 'Theory', 'French Theory', 'cultural studies', or
> 'literary
> critisism'. You would have more chance delving into their ideas in an
> English
> department than in one of philosophy? And it's not for lack of
> fascinating
> material that they are left aside. Then why?
> As for home-grown philosophers in this domain I can't think of any that
> has
> attained the status of those on the continetal side. It even seems that
> at
> least when I think of the analytic tradition there isn't much room for
> aesthetics. But when I flip through my reference book I am reminded that
> the
> analytic approach has historically focused on 'logic, language, and
> conceptual
> questions'. And somehow this can't be applied to aesthetics!?! But it
> hasn't or
> seldom has. Today, according to the very limited research I've done and
> please
> correct me if I'm wrong, a philosophy department is lucky to have 1
> member of
> faculty who specialises in aesthetics. I know there's York that offers a
> masters in the field and is home to the journal, Aesthetics. But other
> than
> that, none seem to brandish this field. Why?
>
> I don't have an answer yet. But I'd love to hear someone else's view.
>
> Alexis
>
>
> Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing
> list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml
>
>
>





Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml